It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

You WILL survive a nuke attack!

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 12:13 PM
link   
Slate has an interesting article. We're most likely no longer dealing with a MAD situation anymore, where millions will perish as cities across the globe are erased in a matter of minutes.

Instead, we're dealing with terrorists who will likely use low kiloton detonations.

So, statistically, you will survive. But how to survive in the long haul (i.e., avoiding radiation fallout, future cancer, etc) will depend on how you prepare.

Read here:

www.slate.com...




posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 01:37 PM
link   
Well as someone who lives a good distance away from any probable nuclear attacks i have always supposed i would survive. If your in a big city like New York or any big city i geuss then it can only be a good thing to think about what you would do given a couple of minutes warning. Withouht atleast a thought beforehand, your making ti much much harder for yourself.

Have you even thought about what you woudl do in an attack. i have given it passing consideration, nothing more.



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 02:05 PM
link   
I would imagine most people would survive a nuclear blast as long as the blasts weren't scattered all around the globe. A nuclear bomb only has a radius of about 200 miles,right? I may be wrong on that...maybe someone can clarify...

[edit on 14-9-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 04:44 PM
link   
as peaceful minded as i am...
If i ever get nuked and live...
the folks that nuked me will be my one and only interest...
and revenge at any cost...


now consider that the USA is one of the most likely countries to need to nuke anytime soon...
and consider what all the survivors of the country we attack will think...

it is still a MAD world... just perhaps a little less mad...

Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 14-9-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 06:29 PM
link   
You may survive the strike but will you survive the panic by your fellow citizens. What about those who will take advantage of the situation to take what they desire who do not care one wit about your life. Will you survive strict martial law.

Civil disorder, roving gangs, people driven to desperation by panic and governmental authority attempting to maintain control are my worry.

Those who consider themselves in control now will become the hunted then, unless of course one makes plans for this event which I believe is only a matter of time before actually happening.


LL1

posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 10:54 PM
link   
Katrina is only a small example of what chaos can be like, but this will be far worse, if it should happen. No food, no clean water, no electric, no authority, etc. etc.

The terrorist stated they have plans to take things to grandeur scale, by hitting seven major cities. As per OBL 10 million people ("2 million must be children") is what he has asked a Saudi cleric permission for, that's an extremely large number of people.

Next month, in October the USA poplulation will increase to 300 million people. Is this a connection? I think so.

They have used the Art of War, warning us prior to attack.

They stated their next attack will be an "unexpected, unlikely, something not watched, not a landmark and more devastating than the WTC" type of an attack.

I have questioned what can be "unexpected", well that's easy, anything we are
not told or know about.

"Unlikely", what could be "unlikely"? Expecting "nuke", maybe that's not even it.

"Something not watched", well I think/believe they have everything covered and are protecting and watching everything. But what is "not being watched"?

"Not a landmark", well this would leave out major bridges, buildings, and tunnels etc. right? What's "not a landmark, that's not being watched"?

What could be "more devastating than the WTC"? That's more than 3,000 people.

I've looked at a number of attacks since Kobar Towers (Saudi 1996), to today's attack in Iraq on an Army base was very similiar. No not tactis, there is something else going on, that connects them all.

There is one common denominator that keeps reappearing in all attacks by AQ.

Take Kobar, WTC, Madrid, London and the attack that has occured today in Iraq on the Army base.

What do you see seeming to be going on that connects these attacks.



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 02:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
I would imagine most people would survive a nuclear blast as long as the blasts weren't scattered all around the globe. A nuclear bomb only has a radius of about 200 miles,right? I may be wrong on that...maybe someone can clarify...

[edit on 14-9-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]


It depends on the nuclear bomb. Smaller ones like the alleged suitcase nukes may destroy a 3 mile radius. Yhose are the ones that al queda are alleged to have.

I don't think it's possible for him to kill 3 million in one shot. Unless they have large mega ton bombs, the smaller ones will not kill that many. If he has 10 of them how many will actually work?

And if he ever got the 3 million, I think the world and AQ would have to watch out , the US would be awfully pissed.



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 09:19 AM
link   
I would think schools would be one easy target, since he mention 3 million children and there are way too many schools to protect.

All i have to say about surviving through chaos is make sure you have plenty of ammo and make friends with your neighbors/hood

[edit on 15-9-2006 by IspyU]



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 09:50 AM
link   
As I pointed out in the other current ATS thread , most people are under the misconception that any nuclear attack would mean the end. Far from it. During the coldwar we routinely had air raid drills (yes, I'm that old) because the fear was a mutual exchange of hundreds of multi-megaton warheads.

These days we are far more likely to see a small number of isolated, kiloton range devices. The majority of people will survive this. But only if they know what to do (and not to do) and have the basic necessities to survive. It will only be necessary to shelter in-place for several days before radiation levels decay to a point where going outside is possible. But if you ARE going to survive you need to have some preparations in-place ahead of time.

Keep in mind, bugging-out (evacuation) for the vast majority of people in the affected areas is NOT going to be possible. Remember Katrina. It will be far worse. As stupid (and suicidal) as trying to relocate under the radioactive fallout would be, there would undoubtedly be martial law and serious travel restrictions. The government will be unable to help you or provide virtually any services. You will be on your own.

Here is one of many sites that can help guide you through the preparation process. There are many others on the web but start somewhere:

Disaster Prep

Whenever this issue comes up it's always 'guns and ammo... guns and ammo'. Forget your Mad Maxx fantasies. The roving, looting hordes won't fair quite as well as their Katrina ilk after a nuclear incident. Stored water --- a LOT of stored water --- should be #1 on everyone's survival list. Not just for drinking but for personal hygiene. Your Glock won't be worth a damn if you are debilitated by infection from your own feces. Don't think that will happen? Then you better start reading because you have a LOT to learn. And if you want to come for MY water... there won't just be water waiting for you.



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 09:53 AM
link   
I think there is to much focus on the dirty/suitcase bomb issue, I think the real threat would be from a missile launched from a merchant ship in coastel waters.
Lets face it with all the controls at airports etc. how difficult would it be for a potential terrorist to put a missile on a ship and more importantly who's even checking this possible scenario.
The worlds oceans are full of ships so there's plenty of opportunity for this to happen. Why go to all the trouble of getting a small nuke through when you could use a megaton tipped missile off a none descript ship sat off shore, no warning time, no counter measures.



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 10:54 AM
link   
MM has a viable point but even more likely would be a container delivered device --- either via a transport ship, tanker or shipping container. Although a missile is plausible, the support equipment needed to launch it is enormous and highly complex particularly for a static platform launched missle. Our current cruise missiles (which are air-drop launched) are some 20ft long and carry a 250 kiloton warhead. Launching a missile from the ground (or a ship's deck) would require a siginificantly larger missile and more complex guidance system.

If we assume that any device used by a terrorist group would be acquired from another country's stockpile (like a warhead from a soviet missile) and then smuggled into the US it would almost certainly be 500 kiloton max More likely in the 200kt range. Nothing to sneeze at but there would be lots of survivors.

Nuclear weapons are most effective when exploded in the air over the target. It is highly improbable terrorists could accomplish this. With a groundburst the effects, especially the high intensity radioactive fallout (larger particles), would be highly localized. The bottom line is, other than those in the vicinity of GZ, the rest of us have a fighting chance.

Go Here to test your own scenario. Outside the area of roughly 0.25 psi (which also approximates the area of survivable thermal radiation) you have a chance and, of course, that chance increases with distance.



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 12:32 PM
link   
if you want to find out a realistic scenario following a "small" nuke attack, just take a look at hiroshima and nagasaki.....12.5 and 20kiloton equivalent of tnt.......approx 150000 and 70,000 dead after the initial blast and soon after from exposure and injuries......thats might not be 3milllion people but thats still devastating...and those were the first 60years ago...



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 12:55 PM
link   
One consideration that has to be made is that the Japanese attacks were airburst. That makes an enormous difference in the blast effects and blast radius. Also, if such a device was detonated in Boston, for example, using the higher of your figures over 75% of its population would survive.



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 12:56 PM
link   
What's this fascination with Nukes?

There won't be any terrorist nuke attack, with a dirty bomb, clean bomb or otherwise.

But how do you purpose to survive the biological/Chemecial wepons that are much easier to manufacture, transport and deploy?

Almost any halfassed bio/chem major with access to a fair sized homebrew plant could grow enough biotoxins to wipe out major populations with ease. Or just buy the bio/chem from the weapons manufacturers or on the black mkt. Contrary to popular belief there is realistically no "ban" on bio/chem weapons and they are being manufactured all over the planet.

Schools out kids!



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 12:58 PM
link   
Any speculation or information on what "seven cities' have been theatened?
I suppose we can assume D.C. and NY by default.....


Originally posted by LL1
Katrina is only a small example of what chaos can be like, but this will be far worse, if it should happen. No food, no clean water, no electric, no authority, etc. etc.

The terrorist stated they have plans to take things to grandeur scale, by hitting seven major cities. As per OBL 10 million people ("2 million must be children") is what he has asked a Saudi cleric permission for, that's an extremely large number of people.

Next month, in October the USA poplulation will increase to 300 million people. Is this a connection? I think so.

They have used the Art of War, warning us prior to attack.

They stated their next attack will be an "unexpected, unlikely, something not watched, not a landmark and more devastating than the WTC" type of an attack.

I have questioned what can be "unexpected", well that's easy, anything we are
not told or know about.

"Unlikely", what could be "unlikely"? Expecting "nuke", maybe that's not even it.

"Something not watched", well I think/believe they have everything covered and are protecting and watching everything. But what is "not being watched"?

"Not a landmark", well this would leave out major bridges, buildings, and tunnels etc. right? What's "not a landmark, that's not being watched"?

What could be "more devastating than the WTC"? That's more than 3,000 people.

I've looked at a number of attacks since Kobar Towers (Saudi 1996), to today's attack in Iraq on an Army base was very similiar. No not tactis, there is something else going on, that connects them all.

There is one common denominator that keeps reappearing in all attacks by AQ.

Take Kobar, WTC, Madrid, London and the attack that has occured today in Iraq on the Army base.

What do you see seeming to be going on that connects these attacks.



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 01:01 PM
link   
With regard to missile launchers, the former Soviet republic had many trailer mounted stand alone missile systems that could be used anywhere. And I think that even the thought of surviving a nuke attack is a nightmare. If the US/UK Goverments went to war with Iraq because of 9/11 what do you think the response would be to a nuke attack, it would be a free for all.
The cold war MAD system worked because the players involved had at least some rules to play by. Now were in a different ball game where certain groups around the world are itching for payback against the UK/USA. It would be far better to prevent such an occurance rather than predicting can you survive it.



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 01:11 PM
link   
Whaaa, although agree with you about the dangers of chem/bio attack I think you are being cavalier when you write-off the risk of a nuclear terrorist attack. Given the amount of effort they have historically put into acquiring nukes it is clear that they see them as important. Whereas a cem/bio attack would be truly horrific a nuclear attack --- even a modest one --- would be spectacular. And as chemical weapons go, nuclear weapons are the mother of all chemical weapons. The gift that keeps on giving as it were.

Oh, and we're not so much fascinated with nukes here. It was the topic of the thread.



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 02:07 PM
link   


posted by behindthescenes

We're no longer dealing with a MAD situation, where millions will perish as cities across the globe are erased in a matter of minutes. Instead, we're dealing with terrorists who will likely use low kiloton detonations. So, statistically, you will survive. But how to survive in the long haul i.e., avoiding radiation fallout, future cancer, etc will depend on how you prepare. [Edited by Don W]


I had the good fortune to work for my city’s Civil Defense unit in the late 1950s. My job was Radiological Monitor Instructor. 2 of us CD-types would go to any requesting civic group to explain what we knew about the aftermath of nuclear war. The fall-out pattern of our largest H-Bomb - about 40 megatons - exploded at Eniwetok Atoll, would have stretched from Boston to W-DC if overlaid on a map of the East Coast. About 100 miles wide. Our Eastern megalopolis would have been bereft of humans.

I would demonstrate a half dozen types of Geiger counters and give them some basic information about radiation. We used Roentgens as units of radiation and 600 was a lethal dose. LD. Exposure to radiation is cumulative. Anyone who got ½ LD in 14 days was considered to be at high risk of radiation poisoning. Survival depends on intensive medical care, including whole blood if available.

My associate explained the shelter strategy. All our calculations on water, food, batteries, medicines, and so on, were based on 14 days in the shelter. We did not mention that many of the isotopes likely to follow a nuclear explosion will have a half life measured in the10s of 1000s of yeas. One unpleasant issue is how to keep your neighbor out of your shelter built and stocked for just your family. Americans being Americans, the quick answer was to shoot them. So, you’d have to add fresh ammo to your survival item list. Maybe a 12 gauge “street sweeper” from Ruger?

That this Bush43 “scar’em to death” worst case scenario has not happened is in no way due to the Patriot Act nor the torture at Guantanamo Bay. I notice it usually rises sharply about 4 months before each election. As if it was more a campaign ploy that reality. Seven million cargo containers enter the US annually. The ICE is only looking inside fewer than 500,000. It seems more likely to me that OBL has more urgent business to attend or he would have already sent us something unpleasant.

With undocumented border crossings along our Southern border rising sharply since the 1990s, estimated in 2005 at 4 million, it is equally obvious that OBL had no plans to infiltrate our country through that avenue. As we have seen in England, there are plenty of home grown radicals willing to do serious damage to the US anytime OBL says “Go!”

We need to give up get over the Bush43 Gonzales Cheney “fight dumb” strategy and begin to “fight smart.”



[edit on 9/15/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 02:13 PM
link   
My oh my, why worrying about nuclear attacks when we all know that our beloved Bush is keeping all safe.

What people!!!!!! you have not faith on your elected officials.



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 02:32 PM
link   
THis is propaganda, aimed at desentizing people on the danger of nuclear weapons.

THere are still more than 10 000 nuclear warheads that are over 10 megatons on the planet, and most are possessed by the US and Russia. THere are nations like China, UK, Israel and perhaps North Korea and Iran who also have a dangerous nuclear capability.

With an 50 megatons bomb you can wipe out most of the world's major cities, and that includes NYC. And that means the whole urban area being RAZED TO THE GROUND, with all the surroundings irradiated and poised for centuries, and radioactive clouds polluting the Earth for years and killing billions of lives both in the waters and on the ground in the process. The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs, even with the massacre they have caused, were grenades compared to the nukes that the most powerful countries in the world have today.

No, the nuclear threat is not about some terrorist haging around in a big city with a dirty bomb, although this is how a nuclear holocaust would begin. It took only a few buildings collapsing on 9-11 to shake the world and slow down the economy for weeks, this, aside from the barbaric national security policies adopted by our governments and a constant, global war lauched by the US. It would only take a dirty bomb to explode somewhere, and it'd be only a matter of days or weeks before you're running for the hills out of scare.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join